Advertisement

Health Care Analysis

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 59–68 | Cite as

A Strategy to Improve Priority Setting in Health Care Institutions

  • Doug Martin
  • Peter Singer
Article

Abstract

Priority setting (also known as resource allocation or rationing) occurs at every level of every health system and is one of the most significant health care policy questions of the 21st century. Because it is so prevalent and context specific, improving priority setting in a health system entails improving it in the institutions that constitute the system. But, how should this be done? Normative approaches are necessary because they help identify key values that clarify policy choices, but insufficient because different approaches lead to different conclusions and there is no consensus about which ones are correct, and they are too abstract to be directly used in actual decision making. Empirical approaches are necessary because they help to identify what is being done and what can be done, but are insufficient because they cannot identify what should be done. Moreover, to be really helpful, an improvement strategy must utilize rigorous research methods that are able to analyze and capture experience so that past problems are corrected and lessons can be shared with others. Therefore, a constructive, practical and accessible improvement strategy must be research-based and combine both normative and empirical methods. In this paper we propose a research-based improvement strategy that involves combining three linked methods: case study research to describe priority setting; interdisciplinary research to evaluate the description using an ethical framework; and action research to improve priority setting. This describe-evaluate-improve strategy is a generalizable method that can be used in different health care institutions to improve priority setting in that context.

empirical bioethics fairness improvement interdisciplinary research priority setting resource allocation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Alexander, J.A., et al. (1999) Do market-level hospital and physician resources affect small area variation in hospital use? Medical Care Research & Review 56, 94-117.Google Scholar
  2. Bear, R., et al. (1998) The Last Critical Care Bed in Western Canada. Healthcare Management Forum 11(4).Google Scholar
  3. Black, N., & Donald, A. (2001) Evidence based policy: proceed with care. British Medical Journal 323, 275-9.Google Scholar
  4. Blundell, R., & Windmeijer, F. (2000) Identifying demand for health resources using waiting times information. Health Economics 9, 465-74.Google Scholar
  5. Canadian Institute for Health Information, http://www.cihi.ca/facts/nhex/hexdata.shtml.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1994) Pluralism and Proceduralism, Chicago-Kent Law Review 69, 589-618.Google Scholar
  7. Daniels, N., & Sabin, J.E. (2002) Setting Limits Fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Daniels, N. (2000) Accountability for reasonableness. British Medical Journal 321, 1300-1301.Google Scholar
  9. Daniels, N., Sabin, J.E. (1997) Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation and the legitimacy problem for Insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs 26(4), 303-502.Google Scholar
  10. Deber, R., et al. (1994) Technology Acquisition in Canadian Hospitals: How is it done, and where is the information coming from? Healthcare Management FORUM 7(4), 18-27.Google Scholar
  11. Eland, I.A., et al. (1998) [Provision of taxoids in 1996: inequality of care] [Dutch]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 142, 518-21.Google Scholar
  12. Foy, R., et al. (1999) Perspectives of commissioners and cancer specialists in prioritising new cancer drugs: impact of the evidence threshold. British Medical Journal 318, 456-459.Google Scholar
  13. Ham, C. (1993) Priority setting in the NHS: Reports from six districts. British Medical Journal 307, 435-8.Google Scholar
  14. Ham, C., et al. (1995) Evidence based policymaking. British Medical Journal 310, 71-2.Google Scholar
  15. Ham, C. (1999) Tragic choices in health care: Lessons from the Child B case. British Medical Journal 319, 1258-61.Google Scholar
  16. Ham, C., & McIver, S. (2000) Contested Decisions: Priority setting in the NHS. London, UK: King's Fund Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Ham, C., & Coulter, A. (2001) Explicit and implicit rationing: taking responsibility and avoiding blame for health care choices. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 6, 163-9.Google Scholar
  18. Holm, S. (1998) Goodbye to the simple solutions: The second phase of priority setting in health care. British Medical Journal 317, 1000-7.Google Scholar
  19. Hope, T., et al. (1998) Rationing and the health authority. British Medical Journal 317, 1067-1069.Google Scholar
  20. Hurley, J., et al. (1995) Geographically-decentralized planning and management in health care: Some informational issues and their implications for efficiency. Social Science & Medicine 41, 3-11.Google Scholar
  21. Kahn, R.L. (1993) The MacArthur Foundation Program in Mental Health and Human Development: An Experiment in Scientific Organization. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.Google Scholar
  22. Klein, R. (1998) Puzzling out priorities. British Medical Journal 317, 959-60.Google Scholar
  23. Kleinman, A. Ethics and experience: An anthropological approach to health equity. Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies Working Paper Series 99.04 (March 1999), page 6.Google Scholar
  24. Kovac, M. (1998) Rationing of hospital services in the Australian health system. Croatian Medical Journal 39, 339-45.Google Scholar
  25. LeCompte, M.D., & Schensul, J.J. (1999) Designing & Conducting Ethnographic Research. London: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  26. LeCompte, M.D., et al. (1999) Researcher Roles & Research Partnerships. London: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  27. Martin, D.K., & Singer, P.A. (2000) Priority Setting and Health Technology Assessment: Beyond Evidence Based Medicine and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. In C. Ham, A. Coulter (Eds.), The Global Challenge of Health Care Rationing (pp. 135-45). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Martin, D.K., et al. (2001) Priority Setting Decisions for New Cancer Drugs: A Qualitative Study. Lancet 358, 1676-81.Google Scholar
  29. Martin, D.K., & Singer, P.A. Priority setting for health technologies in Canada. In C. Ham and G. Roberts (Eds.), Priority setting in health care. Institutions, information and accountability for reasonableness. London, UK: King's Fund Publications, in press.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, D.K., et al. (in press O'Riordan, T.) Priority Setting and Hospital Strategic Planning: A Qualitative Case Study. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy.Google Scholar
  31. McKneally, M.F., et al. (1997) Bioethics for Clinicians: Resource Allocation. Canadian Medical Association Journal 157, 163-7.Google Scholar
  32. Norheim, O. (2000) “Procedures for Priority Setting and Mechanisms of Appeal in the Norwegian Health Care System.” Presentation at the 3 rd International Conference on Priorities In Health. (Amsterdam, The Netherlands).Google Scholar
  33. Rawls, J. (1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rosenfield, P.L. (1992) The potential transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between health and social sciences. Social Science & Medicine 11, 1342-57.Google Scholar
  35. Singer, P.A., & Mapa, J. (1998) Ethics of Resource Allocation: Dimensions for Healthcare Executives. Hospital Quarterly 1(4):29-31.Google Scholar
  36. Singer, PA., et al. (2000) Priority Setting for New Technologies in Medicine: A Qualitative Case Study. British Medical Journal 321, 1316-8.Google Scholar
  37. Taylor, V.M., et al. (1998) Hospitalizations for back and neck problems: A comparison between the Province of Ontario and Washington State. Health Services Research 33(4 Pt 1): 929-45.Google Scholar
  38. Willliams, J.R., et al. (1996) Ethics for regional boards. Leadership in Health Services 5, 22-6.Google Scholar
  39. Williams, J.R., & Yeo, M. (2000) The Ethics of Decentralizing Health Care Priority Setting in Canada. In C. Ham and A. Coulter (Eds.), The Global Challenge of Health Care Rationing. (pp. 123-32). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Yin, R.K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doug Martin
    • 1
  • Peter Singer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation and the Joint Centre for BioethicsUniversity of TorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of MedicineUniversity of Toronto; Canadian Institutes of Health Research Distinguished InvestigatorCanada

Personalised recommendations